Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#811

Post by nasmorn »

jraph wrote: post #722
phpisthebest wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicali…

> Offense is a you problem, not a me problem Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended. But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usuall…

I would not call anyone the N-word but would ask for a brown paper bag if I needed it at the grocery store. I have personally never met someone that is offended by the use of eg. colors as a concept but yet some people are trying to remove them from language.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#812

Post by DiscourseFan »

nonethewiser wrote: post #248
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #125

Those whose focus is on controlling language are not primarily concerned about controlling your words. They're primarily interested in controlling you . I'm old enough to remember when the word 'retard' was the politically correct term before it became "mentally handicapped" then "challenged" and so on. Same goes for 'cripple' which also accurately and concisely describes a particular class of physical impairment. Th…

They think truth is subject to power. Look at how they describe hierarchies. And as no surprise, they power hungry authoritarians. By their own description, that’s just how the world works.

the production of knowledge is subject to power, Bill Gates has fundamentally altered medical research since his priorities decide where the funding goes. Universities require funding, academics need to eat, researchers outside of these institutions generally work for corporate-backed labs or thinktanks.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#813

Post by [deleted] »

bombcar wrote: post #707
sva_ wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had an injury in both of my legs after a long hike. It caused my legs to be so swollen that I had very limited mobility, but I could still walk - though it probably looked very awkward. In school, children get taught that when someone looks disabled, you shouldn't look at them, because staring at them is some kind of discrimination or so. I couldn't disagree more. When I had that injury, and was kind of crip-w…

I kind of feel the euphemism treadmill is the language version of “looking away”. Blind is stark; powerful; forces me to contemplate the lack of vision - I can’t escape it. But if I start using “visually challenged” then it’s softer, sounds like a game, challenges can be overcome, this isn’t something I need to worry about.

[deleted]

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#814

Post by [deleted] »

lapcat wrote: post #747
phpisthebest wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicali…

> Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" I think you miss the point of "sticks and stones". The point is not that it's ok to say whatever you want to anyone else. The point of "sticks and stones" is not to let other people bring down your self-esteem. Other people will intentionally try to denigrate you. They'll call you "stupid". They'll call you "ugly". Or the…

[deleted]

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#815

Post by James_Henry »

throway33 wrote: post #768
Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly related: in German, a strange thing happened at the end of the last century. Disabled people used to be called "behindert" (might be translated as "impeded" or "hindered"). I think the word was a good choice, because it took the blame away from people, and just described that they had to overcome bigger obstacles because of their situation. In the eighties or nineties, people started to use the term as a slu…

"Invalid" used to be used in English in the 19th century. I see it in old books sometimes; had to look it up the first time. It's not a great word choice and sounds more like an illegal immigrant status or something.

Do people not use invalid anymore? I thought it was still used for people bed-bound by illness.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#817

Post by obscurette »

RichEO wrote: post #176
blahblah1234567 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Latine and LatinX both originate in (different geographical parts of) the spanish-first-language I doubt it. Having lived in Latin America, Latin American social norms are influenced by Catholicism and their societies are more conservative & traditionalist than the US and Europe. The vast majority of people in Latin American countries (outside of Costa Rica & Chile) struggle with academic achievement (including lite…

You’ve commented a number of times on this post, and every time you relate equity language to communism/Marxism. I’m struggling to follow your reasoning. What does communism have to do with anything?

It might be a simple association. The war against language as an instrument to control people has been part of every communist regime.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#818

Post by slackdog »

rayiner wrote: post #743
ShredKazoo wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAACP stands for "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People". Interesting how "Colored People" was an enlightened term in 1909, but "Colored People" is now out and "People of Color" is the new way to go.

No, “people of color” is now in the “past” as Sierra Club says. The “preferred term today” is “BIPOC” which acknowledges that black and indigenous people are more important than other “people of color.” I don’t remember Asians signing off on this change request; I doubt Hispanics did either.

The old phrase is inside the new phrase of course, or at least it is if you try to say it out loud. Or maybe only the initialism is meant to be spoken, I'm not sure. I suspect these kind of situations (BIPOC, Latinx, Xir/Xer etc) occur when terminally online people accustomed to text communication forget that language is spoken too, not just typed. That's why they come up with all these new terms that can be read as text but become unintelligible noise when spoken.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#819

Post by monetus »

Language is fluid and dictionaries aren't that old historically. I wish more people thought about this. Go with what you feel is useful and respectful. Brevity is useful, rephrasing of those words in common use will trigger people, and getting angry at someone's desire to be respectful is going to trigger someone. Don't like it, come up with your own words. Shakespeare did.

when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time - is bs when used to preclude the ideas of change and compassion, or shut down communication. I'm guessing that likely wasn't its original intent, language is fluid.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#820

Post by kbenson »

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #663
Lazare wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My partner is disabled, and by chance and via support groups she is a member of, she has many friends annd acquaintences who are as well. And while it's by no means universal, she and all her disabled friends absolutely loathe the "people first language" currently in vogue (ie, "person with a disability" over "disabled"). And it's odd! Because while there are certainly disabled people who prefer one form over another…

Slightly related: in German, a strange thing happened at the end of the last century. Disabled people used to be called "behindert" (might be translated as "impeded" or "hindered"). I think the word was a good choice, because it took the blame away from people, and just described that they had to overcome bigger obstacles because of their situation. In the eighties or nineties, people started to use the term as a slu…

This points towards part of what's actually going on and why people keep trying to change the terminology. There's always a subset of people that use the terminology as a pejorative, because they see the people it refers to as either lesser or embarrassing to be a part of. Often children, because they don't know any better, but adults (whether children that never stopped or for other reasons) as well. Then the fact that the term is used as a pejorative spurs people (whether part of that group or not at this point) to change the accepted terminology to something else. Rinse and repeat.
Post reply on HN